Canons to the right of them! Canons to the left of them. Canons in front of them! Into the valley of canons march the PB and GCC minions! Want to bet that some canons are more equal than others? Dollars to donuts.
I am a layman from St Alban’s Anglican Church in Los Banos, and I was a delegate to Diocesan Convention in December. I voted with the majority to leave TEC……as I said I would do following the previous convention, and I fully support our Standing Committee.
Sadly, the “law” in TEC is whatever a bishop says it is, and has been since Bishop (pro tempore) Dixon of Washington,D.C. declared that the canonical 30 days she had to reject Fr. Sam Edwards really meant 90+ days, and her fiat was upheld by the national church. Might makes right.
I will say that it seems wrong to complain about Bp. Schori founding a TEC parish in their area when they removed themselves from TEC. You really can’t have it both ways.
This is an excellent letter. Indeed, I think it is one of the best letters to come out of this mess over the past several years. The Standing Committee of the DSJ (TEC) should be saluted.
As I posted over at StandFirm:
This is an incredible letter, even better then I was suggesting. These guys really nail it, in more ways then one. This letter has messages for many audiences:
1) To moderate/conservative TEC bishops and any liberal TEC bishop with a conscience – this letter makes it quite clear that KJS has overstepped her authority. This letter puts a crowbar between the liberal institutionalists and the liberal extremists. You’ve got to know that there will be quite a number of TEC bishops and clergy squirming when they read this.
2) To Rowan Williams – this letter makes it clear that the 815 authorities are abusing TEC’s canons and polity and are abusing orthodox Episcopalians who are NOT LEAVING. If Rowan ignores this sort of gross abuse of process, his credibility shatters. Not even the ACI can cover for him then.
3) To the moderate Anglican primates – this letter makes it clear to them that KJS is rabidly pursuing even those orthodox who want to “play by the Communion rulesâ€. In other words, it won’t be enough to say “just play nice, avoid GAFCON and you will be okay.â€
This letter carefully lays out the grounds in which KJS herself has violated the canons, and sets the groundwork for an eventual Presentment. In my humble opinion, this letter is one of the best things I have seen come out of any Anglican body over the last several years.
As there is no “supreme court” or indeed any court to which such matters may be appealed, and as few if any lawyers in TEC are trained in Canon Law -unlike the Brits – unfortunately power rests with the mighty, however amateur rather than the expert!
Obviously in a de facto manner one of the fall outs of the present unhappiness is an increase in primatial power and a thinning of the separation between church and state as TEC relies on secular courts to enforce its own discipline.
An depending on which court things wind up in they could apply a neutral principles of law approach and not enforce anything for TEC and hand them their head on a plate. They lost a case this week in New York when they were paid $275,000.00 for a parish that left in 1977 and they sued in 2005. Hopefully they will lose a few more (especially the case in Virginia) and then let’s see where things wind up.
Perhaps I’ve lost track of who is pitching for which team, but am I the only one to be struck by this?
In accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, we ARE the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese of San Joaquin in the event the House of Bishops should choose to depose Bishop John-David Schofield.
I thought the DioSJ position was that the HOB has no authority to depose +Schofield?
#13, what you (with plenty of company) seem not to have grasped is that the six signatories of the letter are already on record as, at the very least, being skeptical of the diocesan move to Southern Cone, if not directly opposed to it. With a little bit of sugar, rather than vinegar, to could be (or could have been as recently as a week ago) tipped fully in the direction of TEC. The fact that the PB chose to behave with such inexplicable foolishness can only indicate that she is not interested merely in keeping a viable TEC diocese in the central valley of California, but in bagging a trophy for her own ideologically monochrome vision of TEC.
The 1977 case I believe was that of Trinity, East New York, which finally left with its building after some legal wrangling with the Diocese of Long Island. They became St. Joseph’s with my then suffragan as their rector.
To the Primates ++KJS stated: “I have no authority to make such decisions. In TEC, the P.B. does not possess powers to make such decisions.” Yet, to a diocese and its Bishop she asserts that she is well within her rights to pronounce, “You are no longer, because I’m the P.B. of this Church and I say so.”
Is this a case of split personality, ecclesiastical/administrative amnesia or just blatant ignorance on her part? Darned if I know.
But they are not on any Standing Committee. +Schofield fired them under direction from his new Archbishop and TEC does not recognize them. So there is no Ecclesiastic Authority that recognizes them either inside or outside the Anglican Communion.
The ship of TEC is sailing in uncharted waters. Some very intelligent people are giving the 815 leadership an opportunity to make critical mistakes, and they’re falling for it – hook, line, and sinker. The PB is in an intriguing bind – if she now recognizes the existing SC, she doesn’t get her way. If she continues to assert that they are not the SC, organizes an illegal diocesan convention and has them elect a new SC – she can be brought up on charges, in addition to those alleged in the letter.
Re #19: The issue is precisely whether a Primate residing in New York, Buenos Aires, or Mars has the authority to dismiss a diocesan standing committee in the US duly elected by persons whom everyone concedes constituted a lawful TEC diocesan convention at the time of election. Roughly 3/4 of the San Joaquin Standing Committee are saying that they do not. By signing as the Standing Committee, they are denying that either attempt at removal has been successful.
Reading further, they are saying almost explicitly that if the Presiding Bishop will back off her uncanonical removal of them, they will at least consider recognizing the inevitable canonical removal of the [i]Episcopal[/i] Bishop of San Joaquin. That would make them the Ecclesiastical Authority responsible for reorganizing the [i]Episcopal[/i] Diocese while the Bishop went on his way as head of a [i]Southern Cone[/i] diocese. Between them, the large parishes represented on the Standing Committee, the reappraiser congregations already committed to stay in TEC, and the fence-sitters that might be persuaded to join them would form a viable diocese.
In other words, they are offering the Presiding Bishop an opportunity to both follow the canons and preserve the existence of a diocese. They are willing to do this, I suspect, because the high-handed action of the Primate of the Southern Cone in ordering them to resign or be fired during their parishes’ guaranteed time of discernment shows that life as a South American diocese will not be a major improvement on life in North America. The one difference is that the Primate will be following his provincial canons by acting as a dictator, instead of violating them, leaving the diocese with no legal recourse even under a “deferral to ecclesiastical authorities” theory.
The powers-that-be in TEC need to have a heart-to-heart talk with the PB and find out whether she is really interested in preserving San Joaquin, and by extension the Episcopal Church, or whether she just wants to throw out all the “troublemakers” and leave only a Church of the Ideologically Pure–a mirror reflection of the church Southern Cone is obviously trying to build.
[blockquote]and leave only a Church of the Ideologically Pure–a mirror reflection of the church Southern Cone is obviously trying to build. [/blockquote]
Darn those Southern Cone ideologs! You know, the ones who are working to preserve their archaic understanding of the authority of Holy Scripture, the bodily resurrection of Christ Jesus, and so on, and so on.
Re #22: The so-on seems to include having all significant decisions in the Church being made by its primates, without significant input from laity, deacons, priests, or even other bishops. Abp. Venables has apparently ordered all the diocesan bishops in the province who want to attend Lambeth to cancel their reservations or else. He has ordered +San Joaquin to fire his Standing Committee… and so on.
Why should this matter to orthodox believers in San Joaquin who indeed “are working to preserve their archaic understanding of the authority of Holy Scripture”? Simple–San Joaquin is historically very Catholic in theological orientation while Southern Cone is historically very Protestant (possibly, when taken as a whole, the most Evangelical and Charismatic of all 38 Anglican provinces). What happens if Abp. Venables decides to forbid the terms “Mass,” “Eucharistic Sacrifice,” “baptismal regeneration,” and the sacramental theology that underlies them? What if he insists on eliminating the Tradition of the pre-Reformation Church as an authoritative guide for interpreting Scripture? What if he insists on holding a Calvinist theory of grace (including the relations between faith and works, justification and sanctification, election and reprobation) rather than a Patristic theory? What if he insists on liturgical changes to reflect the official provincial theology?
Now I don’t know that Abp. Venables would do any such thing, and neither does the Standing Committee. However, we don’t know that he would not. He has shown himself to be an uncompromising fighter for Scripture principles, and all these core Protestant principles are as Scriptural to him as opposition to homosexuality. We do know that if he wanted to impose his principles on his province, he has the power to do so. That is why the Standing Committee is now having second thoughts, I suspect.
Fr. Dan [#14] writes: “With a little bit of sugar, rather than vinegar, to could be (or could have been as recently as a week ago) tipped fully in the direction of TEC.”
Why in heaven’s name would the PB even want to tip the Hamlet Six in TEC’s direction as a standing committee? As Christians, they’re certainly welcome as TEC, but as standing-committee members, good riddance.
Fr. Jake has an interesting speculation: +Venables, +Schofield, and their Hamlet-Six allies are up to mischief, trying to remain in control both of the new Southern Cone diocese and also (via the Hamlet Six) of the remnant TEC diocese. That possibility should be firmly and decisively squashed, which +KJS is doing. Good for her.
#25, I’ve commented on Jake’s site, but to answer your “Why?” question here: Because three of the clergy on the Standing Committee are rectors of the three largest parishes in the diocese. Presuming that they have some influence in the congregations (two of them are 10+ years in cure), and presuming they could and would influence those congregations to stay in TEC, that would result in a hugely more viable “continuing” diocese. With only the Remain Episcopal congregations (St Anne’s, Stockton; St John the Baptist, Lodi [which has humongous building debt]; and Holy Family, Fresno; along with Christ the King, Riverbank and possibly Church of the Saviour, Hanford; plus exiled remnants from St Nicholas’, Atwater, St Francis, Turlock, and St Paul’s, Bakersfield), it is nowhere near a viable diocese. With the three big ones (and at least one pastoral-size parish led by the fourth priest on the SC–and possibly others), it could well be viable, if stripped down. There was a potential tipping point two weeks ago, went the six were “let go” by Bishop Schofield. If 815 had responded with honey rather than vinegar, we could be looking at a DSJ/TEC that could actually make it. And it would have been, IMHO, a huge propaganda victory for the PB. It mystifies me why she spurned it. The only explanation I can think of is that she is simply not interested in a Diocese of San Joaquin that would continue to be “reasserter” in its dominant views, and would rather have a smaller trophy that is a beacon for the TEC majority’s misplaced notion of “inclusion.”
Pleae excuse my ignorance and lack of knowledge of just what the Diocese of of San Joaquin sought to accompliish…it is my undersadning the disoces left TEC. If that is correct, how would the PB have any authority over the Bishop and/or the Standing Committee? What am I missing?
JJRainey (#27), you are correct. What most analyzers are missing is the fact that there is only [i]one[/i] corporate entity in California law that is currently the Diocese of San Joaquin, and it has amended its articles under California law to place itself under the Province of the Southern Cone. There is, accordingly, no currently recognized legal entity that can exercise the authority of a diocese of TEC in the area.
The one entity that exists under California law has its own Bishop and its own (mostly new) Standing Committee, who are not subject to the jurisdiction of TEC. If TEC tries to bring a lawsuit in California court to have the DSJ’s corporate amendments undone, it will lose because it can cite no canon or Constitutional provision which those amendments violated.
What is left in the area of the former DSJ, as far as TEC is concerned, is an unorganized mission territory which could (in time) be organized into a new diocese, or incorporated into a neighboring one. In the former case, TEC will have to create a new California religious corporation to exercise the authority of the diocese, and to hold title to its property and bank accounts. Only then—and not until then—will there once again be a legal entity under California law known as the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin.
Perhaps Fr. Dan can answer a question. Since this process has been going on for over a year now, why are large parishes still “in discernment”. I would have expected those issues to have been decided between the first and second votes on the amendments. Surely someone was officially asking “what are we going to do?”
Corrolary to that: given the overwhelming majority vote to transfer to Southern Cone, how did the standing committee debacle happen? Granted this is new territory for everyone, but that seems a rather strange thing to have happened.
Words Matter—It’s not from Fr. Dan, but perhaps you’ll appreciate the explanation of what you’re calling a “debacle” from [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/9736/#179136]Fr. Wes[/url]—in the eyes of the players, it was anything but.
Re #30: To the best of my knowledge, neither the Christian Church in general nor the Episcopal Church in particular is obligated to adapt its theology of the Church to California corporate law. As a New York-based corporation, I’m not even sure that the Episcopal Church as a legal entity is bound by California law. Obviously, California property is ruled by California law, but your claim goes far beyond that.
The Episcopal Church as a religious entity has the right to recognize as a diocese any entity that qualifies under the rules that the Episcopal Church has chosen for itself and for its own functioning, and to refuse its recognition to any entity that does not meet those criteria. California cannot tell it otherwise without dictating doctrine.
California can certainly state that a corporate entity based in Fresno, but taking orders from Buenos Aires, is entitled to the property. So what? That doesn’t mean that TEC (or the rest of the Anglican Communion) has to recognize that entity as the legitimate Anglican presence in Central California when there is a body, the Standing Committee, which has a much better claim to be the local Ecclesiastical Authority under both the national and diocesan canons. It just means that the Southern Cone Diocese will owe its existence to California secular law, rather than to the Christian traditions that it has claimed to uphold.
[blockquote]The Episcopal Church as a religious entity has the right to recognize as a diocese any entity that qualifies under the rules that the Episcopal Church has chosen for itself and for its own functioning, and to refuse its recognition to any entity that does not meet those criteria. California cannot tell it otherwise without dictating doctrine.[/blockquote]
Fine, however, the P.B. is not “TEC.” Conversely, TEC is not “The P.B.” Me thinks that the P.B. is acting a bit autocratic these days. She is not “the Queen of this Church.” So, tell me, what is with all of this “Off with their heads” dictates, when she is actually “the Queen of nothing.”
Thank you for the link. The enemies of SJ have hay with the situation, so “debacle” seems a reasonable word tp me.
Nevertheless, I still don’t understand why, a year into it, and after a significant minority of the diocesan convention voted for the move, major parishes are still in discernment.
Words Matter writes, “I still don’t understand why, a year into it, and after a significant majority of the diocesan convention voted for the move, major parishes are still in discernment.”
Because there was nothing to discern until very recently. The constitutional change, yes, was in the pipeline. But, as I have written elsewhere, that alone did not necessarily divorce SJ from TEC. The Southern Cone plan was not revealed until literally a few weeks before the December convention, and it was a plan about which the elected leadership of the diocese was kept largely in the dark by the Bishop and his staff. Hardly time for any serious discernment.
Fr. Dan [#36] writes: “The Southern Cone plan was not revealed until literally a few weeks before the December convention, and it was a plan about which the elected leadership of the diocese was kept largely in the dark by the Bishop and his staff. Hardly time for any serious discernment.”
If that’s true, then the Hamlet Six breached their fiduciary responsibility (the term used in the canon’s sidebar heading) by failing to publicly propose that the approval vote be postponed, so that more time could be taken for just such serious discernment. In that situation, their silence amounted to culpable complicity: the canon imposed on them a duty to speak, and they failed in that duty.
Holy Conspiracy Theories, Batman!
My goodness, you don’t suppose that, maybe, just maybe, the actions of the One True Standing Committee of that which Professes to still be the ECUSAN Diocese of San Joaquin might actually, truly, be trying to do the job that they were elected to do? Goodness, what a thought.
The inane sputtering of liberals is truly amusing.
#36 Because there was nothing to discern until very recently.
Fr. Martins, as I said above your comments have been very helpful (and thanks for collecting them on your blog), but I don’t buy this at all. Once the PB sent the threatening letter to +Schofield in late 2006, it was clear that action would be necessary to protect your bishop. The notion that one could take more time to discern what to do evaporated at that point. What has happened to Scofield, Duncan, Iker and, indeed, the DSJ Standing Committee itself, did not come out of the blue. It was telegraphed in that original letter. I am accepting your statements about communications (or lack thereof) between bishop and standing committee, but it was apparent to the world that action had to be taken this year to protect your bishop. Failure to see this was willful blindness. Look at what has happened since.
Crossposted from SF:
Father Dan has the right of it. EITHER 815 is right and there is still a diocese of San Joaquin, ECUSA, OR 815 is wrong and a diocese CAN leave the national church.
If the former is true, the Standing committee is the ecclesial authority. Period.
If the latter is true, the geographic area, as far as the national church is concerned, is a missionary district sans a diocesan structure.
In either case, Dr. Schori has no canonical authority to do what she did.
If the former is true, she needs to back off and let the Standing Committee run the diocese. Honey would help here, if 815 would like the progressive remnant to have a chance at an equal share of power is the only thing the ECUSA cares about.) It is also the Standing Committee’s decision whether there will be lawsuits or an amicable split.
If the latter is true, it will require some back-pedaling on the part of 815. They will have to admit that, yes, a diocese CAN leave the national church. That being the case, this particular geographical section of CA is an open mission field, and thus the PB & the HoB can ask nearby-bishops to organize missions into this area. Thus, since there is no diocese, the so-called “standing committee†could not be, because there is no diocese. In this case, parishes who wish to try and reorganize into a diocese would start from scratch.
Both would require some sacrifices on the part of 815. The big problem is that it seems no one ever taught Kathy that sometimes one must lose a battle to win a war. But if 815 continues on this current, illogical, non-canonical course out of line with their precious polity, they will indeed lose both.
Perhaps we are witnessing the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart?
Come down out of the clouds, #33, and recognize hard facts on the ground. TECGC can of course recognize anything it wants to as the Diocese of SJ, but unless that Diocese is organized as a legal entity under California (or even some other State’s) secular law, it will not be able to take title to property, open bank accounts, or bring suit in its name. Since my previous post, I have learned that the actual DSJ is a California unincorporated association, and the Bishop’s corporation sole holds title to all of its property and assets. Nothing (except perhaps Art. VI, Sec. 1 of TEC’s Constitution—but don’t let that stop them) would keep the surviving SC six, then, from filing new papers as an unincorporated association with the name “The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin” (since the other DSJ, according to its Web site, is now “The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin”), with them as the organizers. But you don’t want to have any substantial property or bank accounts held by an unincorporated association, any one of whose members could cause the organization to be sued by doing something wrong in its name. So a new Bishop would need to be elected and authorized to file papers for a corporation sole for that purpose; or the Diocese itself could just incorporate as a nonprofit religious corporation. Whatever way things go, TECGC (and Province VIII) will have the final say on recognizing whatever comes out of this, but as the other commenters have stressed, there’s no reason (or need) for TEC and its PB to ignore its C&C;’s in the meantime.
#42 has the right of it. The situation doesn’t make any group look good, imo, but 815 is managing to make itself look worst, which takes a certain amount of native talent.
Hilarious!
They told her!
-Vincent
Most Interesting!
Canons to the right of them! Canons to the left of them. Canons in front of them! Into the valley of canons march the PB and GCC minions! Want to bet that some canons are more equal than others? Dollars to donuts.
Bravo.
Please do not make fun of or demean the folks from San Joaquin. The canons are their protection. Where grace breaks down we must sadly rely on law.
I am a layman from St Alban’s Anglican Church in Los Banos, and I was a delegate to Diocesan Convention in December. I voted with the majority to leave TEC……as I said I would do following the previous convention, and I fully support our Standing Committee.
Neal from Dallas –
Sadly, the “law” in TEC is whatever a bishop says it is, and has been since Bishop (pro tempore) Dixon of Washington,D.C. declared that the canonical 30 days she had to reject Fr. Sam Edwards really meant 90+ days, and her fiat was upheld by the national church. Might makes right.
I will say that it seems wrong to complain about Bp. Schori founding a TEC parish in their area when they removed themselves from TEC. You really can’t have it both ways.
This is an excellent letter. Indeed, I think it is one of the best letters to come out of this mess over the past several years. The Standing Committee of the DSJ (TEC) should be saluted.
As I posted over at StandFirm:
This is an incredible letter, even better then I was suggesting. These guys really nail it, in more ways then one. This letter has messages for many audiences:
1) To moderate/conservative TEC bishops and any liberal TEC bishop with a conscience – this letter makes it quite clear that KJS has overstepped her authority. This letter puts a crowbar between the liberal institutionalists and the liberal extremists. You’ve got to know that there will be quite a number of TEC bishops and clergy squirming when they read this.
2) To Rowan Williams – this letter makes it clear that the 815 authorities are abusing TEC’s canons and polity and are abusing orthodox Episcopalians who are NOT LEAVING. If Rowan ignores this sort of gross abuse of process, his credibility shatters. Not even the ACI can cover for him then.
3) To the moderate Anglican primates – this letter makes it clear to them that KJS is rabidly pursuing even those orthodox who want to “play by the Communion rulesâ€. In other words, it won’t be enough to say “just play nice, avoid GAFCON and you will be okay.â€
This letter carefully lays out the grounds in which KJS herself has violated the canons, and sets the groundwork for an eventual Presentment. In my humble opinion, this letter is one of the best things I have seen come out of any Anglican body over the last several years.
9. jamesw:
AND it was a very funny letter. Humor communicates.
As there is no “supreme court” or indeed any court to which such matters may be appealed, and as few if any lawyers in TEC are trained in Canon Law -unlike the Brits – unfortunately power rests with the mighty, however amateur rather than the expert!
Obviously in a de facto manner one of the fall outs of the present unhappiness is an increase in primatial power and a thinning of the separation between church and state as TEC relies on secular courts to enforce its own discipline.
wvparson,
An depending on which court things wind up in they could apply a neutral principles of law approach and not enforce anything for TEC and hand them their head on a plate. They lost a case this week in New York when they were paid $275,000.00 for a parish that left in 1977 and they sued in 2005. Hopefully they will lose a few more (especially the case in Virginia) and then let’s see where things wind up.
Perhaps I’ve lost track of who is pitching for which team, but am I the only one to be struck by this?
I thought the DioSJ position was that the HOB has no authority to depose +Schofield?
#13, what you (with plenty of company) seem not to have grasped is that the six signatories of the letter are already on record as, at the very least, being skeptical of the diocesan move to Southern Cone, if not directly opposed to it. With a little bit of sugar, rather than vinegar, to could be (or could have been as recently as a week ago) tipped fully in the direction of TEC. The fact that the PB chose to behave with such inexplicable foolishness can only indicate that she is not interested merely in keeping a viable TEC diocese in the central valley of California, but in bagging a trophy for her own ideologically monochrome vision of TEC.
I must have missed that aspect of the SJ situation. I’ve been kind of skimming the Anglican news for the last month.
The 1977 case I believe was that of Trinity, East New York, which finally left with its building after some legal wrangling with the Diocese of Long Island. They became St. Joseph’s with my then suffragan as their rector.
Brilliant. Utterly, utterly brilliant.
And you are absolutely correct, Fr. Dan.
To the Primates ++KJS stated: “I have no authority to make such decisions. In TEC, the P.B. does not possess powers to make such decisions.” Yet, to a diocese and its Bishop she asserts that she is well within her rights to pronounce, “You are no longer, because I’m the P.B. of this Church and I say so.”
Is this a case of split personality, ecclesiastical/administrative amnesia or just blatant ignorance on her part? Darned if I know.
I fully support our Standing Committee
But they are not on any Standing Committee. +Schofield fired them under direction from his new Archbishop and TEC does not recognize them. So there is no Ecclesiastic Authority that recognizes them either inside or outside the Anglican Communion.
So, the defecation hits the oscillation!
The ship of TEC is sailing in uncharted waters. Some very intelligent people are giving the 815 leadership an opportunity to make critical mistakes, and they’re falling for it – hook, line, and sinker. The PB is in an intriguing bind – if she now recognizes the existing SC, she doesn’t get her way. If she continues to assert that they are not the SC, organizes an illegal diocesan convention and has them elect a new SC – she can be brought up on charges, in addition to those alleged in the letter.
Re #19: The issue is precisely whether a Primate residing in New York, Buenos Aires, or Mars has the authority to dismiss a diocesan standing committee in the US duly elected by persons whom everyone concedes constituted a lawful TEC diocesan convention at the time of election. Roughly 3/4 of the San Joaquin Standing Committee are saying that they do not. By signing as the Standing Committee, they are denying that either attempt at removal has been successful.
Reading further, they are saying almost explicitly that if the Presiding Bishop will back off her uncanonical removal of them, they will at least consider recognizing the inevitable canonical removal of the [i]Episcopal[/i] Bishop of San Joaquin. That would make them the Ecclesiastical Authority responsible for reorganizing the [i]Episcopal[/i] Diocese while the Bishop went on his way as head of a [i]Southern Cone[/i] diocese. Between them, the large parishes represented on the Standing Committee, the reappraiser congregations already committed to stay in TEC, and the fence-sitters that might be persuaded to join them would form a viable diocese.
In other words, they are offering the Presiding Bishop an opportunity to both follow the canons and preserve the existence of a diocese. They are willing to do this, I suspect, because the high-handed action of the Primate of the Southern Cone in ordering them to resign or be fired during their parishes’ guaranteed time of discernment shows that life as a South American diocese will not be a major improvement on life in North America. The one difference is that the Primate will be following his provincial canons by acting as a dictator, instead of violating them, leaving the diocese with no legal recourse even under a “deferral to ecclesiastical authorities” theory.
The powers-that-be in TEC need to have a heart-to-heart talk with the PB and find out whether she is really interested in preserving San Joaquin, and by extension the Episcopal Church, or whether she just wants to throw out all the “troublemakers” and leave only a Church of the Ideologically Pure–a mirror reflection of the church Southern Cone is obviously trying to build.
[blockquote]and leave only a Church of the Ideologically Pure–a mirror reflection of the church Southern Cone is obviously trying to build. [/blockquote]
Darn those Southern Cone ideologs! You know, the ones who are working to preserve their archaic understanding of the authority of Holy Scripture, the bodily resurrection of Christ Jesus, and so on, and so on.
Re #22: The so-on seems to include having all significant decisions in the Church being made by its primates, without significant input from laity, deacons, priests, or even other bishops. Abp. Venables has apparently ordered all the diocesan bishops in the province who want to attend Lambeth to cancel their reservations or else. He has ordered +San Joaquin to fire his Standing Committee… and so on.
Why should this matter to orthodox believers in San Joaquin who indeed “are working to preserve their archaic understanding of the authority of Holy Scripture”? Simple–San Joaquin is historically very Catholic in theological orientation while Southern Cone is historically very Protestant (possibly, when taken as a whole, the most Evangelical and Charismatic of all 38 Anglican provinces). What happens if Abp. Venables decides to forbid the terms “Mass,” “Eucharistic Sacrifice,” “baptismal regeneration,” and the sacramental theology that underlies them? What if he insists on eliminating the Tradition of the pre-Reformation Church as an authoritative guide for interpreting Scripture? What if he insists on holding a Calvinist theory of grace (including the relations between faith and works, justification and sanctification, election and reprobation) rather than a Patristic theory? What if he insists on liturgical changes to reflect the official provincial theology?
Now I don’t know that Abp. Venables would do any such thing, and neither does the Standing Committee. However, we don’t know that he would not. He has shown himself to be an uncompromising fighter for Scripture principles, and all these core Protestant principles are as Scriptural to him as opposition to homosexuality. We do know that if he wanted to impose his principles on his province, he has the power to do so. That is why the Standing Committee is now having second thoughts, I suspect.
#23: Dale, have you ever met Greg Venables? Do you know of his work in Bolivia and elsewhere?
Fr. Dan [#14] writes: “With a little bit of sugar, rather than vinegar, to could be (or could have been as recently as a week ago) tipped fully in the direction of TEC.”
Why in heaven’s name would the PB even want to tip the Hamlet Six in TEC’s direction as a standing committee? As Christians, they’re certainly welcome as TEC, but as standing-committee members, good riddance.
Fr. Jake has an interesting speculation: +Venables, +Schofield, and their Hamlet-Six allies are up to mischief, trying to remain in control both of the new Southern Cone diocese and also (via the Hamlet Six) of the remnant TEC diocese. That possibility should be firmly and decisively squashed, which +KJS is doing. Good for her.
#25, I’ve commented on Jake’s site, but to answer your “Why?” question here: Because three of the clergy on the Standing Committee are rectors of the three largest parishes in the diocese. Presuming that they have some influence in the congregations (two of them are 10+ years in cure), and presuming they could and would influence those congregations to stay in TEC, that would result in a hugely more viable “continuing” diocese. With only the Remain Episcopal congregations (St Anne’s, Stockton; St John the Baptist, Lodi [which has humongous building debt]; and Holy Family, Fresno; along with Christ the King, Riverbank and possibly Church of the Saviour, Hanford; plus exiled remnants from St Nicholas’, Atwater, St Francis, Turlock, and St Paul’s, Bakersfield), it is nowhere near a viable diocese. With the three big ones (and at least one pastoral-size parish led by the fourth priest on the SC–and possibly others), it could well be viable, if stripped down. There was a potential tipping point two weeks ago, went the six were “let go” by Bishop Schofield. If 815 had responded with honey rather than vinegar, we could be looking at a DSJ/TEC that could actually make it. And it would have been, IMHO, a huge propaganda victory for the PB. It mystifies me why she spurned it. The only explanation I can think of is that she is simply not interested in a Diocese of San Joaquin that would continue to be “reasserter” in its dominant views, and would rather have a smaller trophy that is a beacon for the TEC majority’s misplaced notion of “inclusion.”
Pleae excuse my ignorance and lack of knowledge of just what the Diocese of of San Joaquin sought to accompliish…it is my undersadning the disoces left TEC. If that is correct, how would the PB have any authority over the Bishop and/or the Standing Committee? What am I missing?
Thank you.
Dale
I see the point they are trying to make, what I am questioning is why Cennyd calls them “our Standing Committee” when s/he has left TEC?
Re #26
Fr. Dan Martins’ two comments at Jake’s are the best succinct analysis of this situation I have read anywhere.
JJRainey (#27), you are correct. What most analyzers are missing is the fact that there is only [i]one[/i] corporate entity in California law that is currently the Diocese of San Joaquin, and it has amended its articles under California law to place itself under the Province of the Southern Cone. There is, accordingly, no currently recognized legal entity that can exercise the authority of a diocese of TEC in the area.
The one entity that exists under California law has its own Bishop and its own (mostly new) Standing Committee, who are not subject to the jurisdiction of TEC. If TEC tries to bring a lawsuit in California court to have the DSJ’s corporate amendments undone, it will lose because it can cite no canon or Constitutional provision which those amendments violated.
What is left in the area of the former DSJ, as far as TEC is concerned, is an unorganized mission territory which could (in time) be organized into a new diocese, or incorporated into a neighboring one. In the former case, TEC will have to create a new California religious corporation to exercise the authority of the diocese, and to hold title to its property and bank accounts. Only then—and not until then—will there once again be a legal entity under California law known as the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin.
Perhaps Fr. Dan can answer a question. Since this process has been going on for over a year now, why are large parishes still “in discernment”. I would have expected those issues to have been decided between the first and second votes on the amendments. Surely someone was officially asking “what are we going to do?”
Corrolary to that: given the overwhelming majority vote to transfer to Southern Cone, how did the standing committee debacle happen? Granted this is new territory for everyone, but that seems a rather strange thing to have happened.
Words Matter—It’s not from Fr. Dan, but perhaps you’ll appreciate the explanation of what you’re calling a “debacle” from [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/9736/#179136]Fr. Wes[/url]—in the eyes of the players, it was anything but.
Re #30: To the best of my knowledge, neither the Christian Church in general nor the Episcopal Church in particular is obligated to adapt its theology of the Church to California corporate law. As a New York-based corporation, I’m not even sure that the Episcopal Church as a legal entity is bound by California law. Obviously, California property is ruled by California law, but your claim goes far beyond that.
The Episcopal Church as a religious entity has the right to recognize as a diocese any entity that qualifies under the rules that the Episcopal Church has chosen for itself and for its own functioning, and to refuse its recognition to any entity that does not meet those criteria. California cannot tell it otherwise without dictating doctrine.
California can certainly state that a corporate entity based in Fresno, but taking orders from Buenos Aires, is entitled to the property. So what? That doesn’t mean that TEC (or the rest of the Anglican Communion) has to recognize that entity as the legitimate Anglican presence in Central California when there is a body, the Standing Committee, which has a much better claim to be the local Ecclesiastical Authority under both the national and diocesan canons. It just means that the Southern Cone Diocese will owe its existence to California secular law, rather than to the Christian traditions that it has claimed to uphold.
[blockquote]The Episcopal Church as a religious entity has the right to recognize as a diocese any entity that qualifies under the rules that the Episcopal Church has chosen for itself and for its own functioning, and to refuse its recognition to any entity that does not meet those criteria. California cannot tell it otherwise without dictating doctrine.[/blockquote]
Fine, however, the P.B. is not “TEC.” Conversely, TEC is not “The P.B.” Me thinks that the P.B. is acting a bit autocratic these days. She is not “the Queen of this Church.” So, tell me, what is with all of this “Off with their heads” dictates, when she is actually “the Queen of nothing.”
Chancellor –
Thank you for the link. The enemies of SJ have hay with the situation, so “debacle” seems a reasonable word tp me.
Nevertheless, I still don’t understand why, a year into it, and after a significant minority of the diocesan convention voted for the move, major parishes are still in discernment.
Words Matter writes, “I still don’t understand why, a year into it, and after a significant majority of the diocesan convention voted for the move, major parishes are still in discernment.”
Because there was nothing to discern until very recently. The constitutional change, yes, was in the pipeline. But, as I have written elsewhere, that alone did not necessarily divorce SJ from TEC. The Southern Cone plan was not revealed until literally a few weeks before the December convention, and it was a plan about which the elected leadership of the diocese was kept largely in the dark by the Bishop and his staff. Hardly time for any serious discernment.
Fr. Dan [#36] writes: “The Southern Cone plan was not revealed until literally a few weeks before the December convention, and it was a plan about which the elected leadership of the diocese was kept largely in the dark by the Bishop and his staff. Hardly time for any serious discernment.”
If that’s true, then the Hamlet Six breached their fiduciary responsibility (the term used in the canon’s sidebar heading) by failing to publicly propose that the approval vote be postponed, so that more time could be taken for just such serious discernment. In that situation, their silence amounted to culpable complicity: the canon imposed on them a duty to speak, and they failed in that duty.
#36 – Thank you, Father, for the information. That provides some clarity.
D. C. that’s just ridiculous.
One may question their judgment, but the idea of a sinister “culpable complicity” is over the top.
Holy Conspiracy Theories, Batman!
My goodness, you don’t suppose that, maybe, just maybe, the actions of the One True Standing Committee of that which Professes to still be the ECUSAN Diocese of San Joaquin might actually, truly, be trying to do the job that they were elected to do? Goodness, what a thought.
The inane sputtering of liberals is truly amusing.
#36
Because there was nothing to discern until very recently.
Fr. Martins, as I said above your comments have been very helpful (and thanks for collecting them on your blog), but I don’t buy this at all. Once the PB sent the threatening letter to +Schofield in late 2006, it was clear that action would be necessary to protect your bishop. The notion that one could take more time to discern what to do evaporated at that point. What has happened to Scofield, Duncan, Iker and, indeed, the DSJ Standing Committee itself, did not come out of the blue. It was telegraphed in that original letter. I am accepting your statements about communications (or lack thereof) between bishop and standing committee, but it was apparent to the world that action had to be taken this year to protect your bishop. Failure to see this was willful blindness. Look at what has happened since.
Father Dan now has a very helpful summary:
http://cariocaconfessions.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-san-joaquin-flotsam-and-jetsam.html
Crossposted from SF:
Father Dan has the right of it. EITHER 815 is right and there is still a diocese of San Joaquin, ECUSA, OR 815 is wrong and a diocese CAN leave the national church.
If the former is true, the Standing committee is the ecclesial authority. Period.
If the latter is true, the geographic area, as far as the national church is concerned, is a missionary district sans a diocesan structure.
In either case, Dr. Schori has no canonical authority to do what she did.
If the former is true, she needs to back off and let the Standing Committee run the diocese. Honey would help here, if 815 would like the progressive remnant to have a chance at an equal share of power is the only thing the ECUSA cares about.) It is also the Standing Committee’s decision whether there will be lawsuits or an amicable split.
If the latter is true, it will require some back-pedaling on the part of 815. They will have to admit that, yes, a diocese CAN leave the national church. That being the case, this particular geographical section of CA is an open mission field, and thus the PB & the HoB can ask nearby-bishops to organize missions into this area. Thus, since there is no diocese, the so-called “standing committee†could not be, because there is no diocese. In this case, parishes who wish to try and reorganize into a diocese would start from scratch.
Both would require some sacrifices on the part of 815. The big problem is that it seems no one ever taught Kathy that sometimes one must lose a battle to win a war. But if 815 continues on this current, illogical, non-canonical course out of line with their precious polity, they will indeed lose both.
Perhaps we are witnessing the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart?
Come down out of the clouds, #33, and recognize hard facts on the ground. TECGC can of course recognize anything it wants to as the Diocese of SJ, but unless that Diocese is organized as a legal entity under California (or even some other State’s) secular law, it will not be able to take title to property, open bank accounts, or bring suit in its name. Since my previous post, I have learned that the actual DSJ is a California unincorporated association, and the Bishop’s corporation sole holds title to all of its property and assets. Nothing (except perhaps Art. VI, Sec. 1 of TEC’s Constitution—but don’t let that stop them) would keep the surviving SC six, then, from filing new papers as an unincorporated association with the name “The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin” (since the other DSJ, according to its Web site, is now “The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin”), with them as the organizers. But you don’t want to have any substantial property or bank accounts held by an unincorporated association, any one of whose members could cause the organization to be sued by doing something wrong in its name. So a new Bishop would need to be elected and authorized to file papers for a corporation sole for that purpose; or the Diocese itself could just incorporate as a nonprofit religious corporation. Whatever way things go, TECGC (and Province VIII) will have the final say on recognizing whatever comes out of this, but as the other commenters have stressed, there’s no reason (or need) for TEC and its PB to ignore its C&C;’s in the meantime.
By far the best letter I’ve read from the whole mess that’s embroiled us since 2003. Well done, DSJ Standing Committee!
#42 has the right of it. The situation doesn’t make any group look good, imo, but 815 is managing to make itself look worst, which takes a certain amount of native talent.